The Assyrian Conquest

The Assyrian Conquest by Immanuel Velikovsky Unpublished Internet [Overgenomen 2010-05-04] Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 1

INTRODUCTION In the work of reconstruction of ancient history and replacement of the conventional scheme by a synchronized version, The Assyrian Conquest belongs, in chronological order, after Ages in Chaos: From the Exodus to King Akhnaton, and before Ramses II and His Time and Peoples of the Sea. By offering it to the readers I fill the gap left by publishing the Reconstruction not in the chronological order, and rely on the indulgence of the readers, many of whom urged me to come out with what reaches maturity or a stage satisfactory for presentation. The period of the Theban Dynasty (labeled Eighteenth ) the subject of the first volume of Ages in Chaos was followed by two and a half centuries during which the ancient East lived in the shadow of Assyrian domination. During this period the world experienced repeated outrages of nature, the theme of Part II ("Mars ) of Worlds in Collision and to a great extent also of Earth in Upheaval, dedicated to the evidence from the domain of the natural sciences. The Assyrian military state thrust its sword into all four directions to the north across the Caucasus into Scythia; to the east into Elam; to the west into Asia Minor, dislodging the Chaldeans and closing in on Phrygia and Lydia, but with the greatest tenacity to the south, into Syria, Phoenicia, Israel, Judah, Egypt, even the Sudan, in ancient times called Ethiopia, or Kush. Although a military state, Assyria developed sculptural art of great power. The hunting scenes with portrayals of lions, wounded or dying, yet still attacking, are unequaled in power of expression in ancient or modern art. The Assyrians, troubled like the rest of the nations by the fear of a repetition of the close cosmic encounters in the disarranged planetary family, excelled in observing the events taking place in the sky. Repeated displacements of orbital planes and even small variations in planetary positions and motions, and abrupt changes in the position and direction of the earth s axis, and the changes in the times of the equinoxes and solstices all were registered on clay tablets, numbering in the tens of thousands. Despite this cultural progress at home, the Assyrians carried on wars of unusual brutality, and often wantonness. In the double shadow of the brutality and wantonness spread by excesses of nature and the Assyrian weapons, the peoples on the land bridge between present Iraq the home of Assyria and Babylonia and Egypt, namely the Syrians, Phoenicians, Israelites and Judeans, acted each in line with their cultural instincts. The Syrians emulated the Assyrians, the Phoenicians heroically defended their maritime cities, but then retreated to build new colonies overseas; yet in parts of the Lebanon of today the proclivity for trade still survives, attesting to the persistence of a national character. To the south, in Israel and Judah, the said double shadow gave birth to a unique brand of prophets, actually a blend of religious reformers and social revolutionaries, who vigorously opposed the priests, the sacrifices, and even the Temple worship as long as the poor were exploited by the rich, and widows, orphans, and the downtrodden were not protected. Further, they were statesmen, trying to select the proper political orientation for the state, going with their message or warning to the people in the market places and in hamlets, but also mounting the steps to the kings palaces, and even abusing the kings, unafraid of the throne as they were unafraid of the altar. Finally they were poets, since equal poetic prose can be searched for in the old ages and the new, but will not be found. Miracles they did not perform, neither miraculous healings; their prophecies were limited to forebodings of political developments, and Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 2

to their threatening with the arrival of more natural disasters to be brought about by renewed dislodgements in the spheres, but consistently ascribed to the Creator of man and watcher over his deeds and even over the thoughts of his soul, as if righteousness would keep nature in bonds. The narrative of this volume comes to its close when the Assyrian conquest ended in a conquest of Assyria and extirpation of that state. There followed not quite a hundred years of Chaldean domination the theme of Ramses II and His Time. After that Persia ruled the ancient world for over two hundred years (-546 to -332) the theme of Peoples of the Sea. The main and singular purpose of this composition, through all its volumes, was and is to replace what are ages in chaos by a revised, or synchronized, chronology and history. In this respect the present volume is pivotal. The generations from the Exodus to King Jehoshaphat or, in Egyptian history, from the fall of the Middle Kingdom to King Akhnaton, were shown in the first volume of this reconstruction to be synchronical by mere juxtaposition of events and personalities: it is brought to light by moving in relation to one another the Egyptian and Israelite histories, a generation after generation, along the entire period, and always at the same interval of ca. 540 years, thus setting the two chronological columns at a synchronical level. At first we left the problem open, which of the two histories would require re-adjustment is the Israelite history in need of finding lost centuries, or does the Egyptian history require excision of unreal ones? Jehosphat and his generals and Ahab and his adversaries in Damascus could not have exchanged letters with Amenhotep III and his heir on the throne, Akhnaton, across the centuries. Soon we realized that of the two time tables, the Egyptian and the Israelite, the former is out of step with historical reality by over five centuries. The Assyrian Conquest is pivotal because the procedure no longer is a mere relative shifting of two chronologies. As I will show, the order of the dynasties, past the conclusion of the Eighteenth (Theban) Dynasty, needs to be altered. The present volume dealing with the period characterized by Assyrian contest for the domination of the lands of the ancient East completes the narrative part of the reconstruction of ancient history from the end of the Middle Kingdom to the spread of Hellenistic culture after the fall of the Persian Empire. Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 3

Part I: The time of Isaiah When the House of Akhnaton Died Out Stormy and unsettled was the period of the eighth and seventh centuries before the present era. The world was uneasy and in a tumultuous state. Terrifying portents were seen in the sky and were accompanied by great perturbations of nature among them earthquakes and changes of climate. The nations of the ancient East were in turmoil. Peoples of the steppes of the north crossed mountain barriers and transgressed the boundaries of states. Civilian unrest flared up in many places and armies marched along military roads, engaging one another in strife and wars. A few decades before this uproar, in the second part of the ninth century, the glorious Theban (Eighteenth) Dynasty of Egypt came to an end and the house of Akhnaton degenerated and was extirpated. For only a short time did Akhnaton s residence city, Akhet-Aton, enjoy the sounds of agitated life, with messengers and ambassadors coming and going. Soon the place was abandoned by men and desert sands swept over it and buried it, to make place at last for the few poor settlements of el-amarna. With Akhet-Aton left to decay, Thebes, the old southern residence, once more was made the capital of the land. Two heirs of Akhnaton in quick succession occupied the throne, each reigning for a short while, before dying young. The younger was Tutankhamen, whose tomb was discovered in 1922. Never before had such riches in gold, jewels and furniture been found in the vault of a dead person. He was buried by the last king of the Eighteenth Dynasty, the old Ay, the granduncle of the last two reigning youths. This much is known: the religious reform of Akhnaton was abolished, his line died out, and his palace and his city were abandoned; but history professes not to know the personal fate of Akhnaton and of the epigoni that followed on the throne of Egypt, nor what happened during the anarchy which followed or which may also have preceded the end of this glorious dynasty. In Oedipus and Akhnaton I undertook the task of reviving the pageant of this era and of illuminating the personal fate of its heroes. I showed also how the tragic fate of the house of Akhnaton gave rise to a legendary cycle that reached to the shores of Greece, took hold of the imagination of generations of poets, and survived in its legendary form till our own days. 1 Paintings on a wooden chest found in the tomb of Tutankhamen show the young king in war against the Ethiopians and Syrians. It appears that in the fraternal war his elder brother Smenkhkare, deprived of his throne, called to his assistance foreign troops; in this war both young princes died. Smenkhkare was buried clandestinely by his sister-spouse, who also placed a 1 Oedipus and Akhnaton: Myth and History (New York, 1960). Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 4

song of love, cut into gold foil, at the feet of the dead. His burial was violated by the emissaries of Ay, brother of Queen Tiy, mother of Akhnaton. Ay, assuming the royal power, officiated at the splendid funeral of his protege Tutankhamen. Having reached the throne in his old age, Ay did not occupy it for long. The exact order of events that ended with Ay s elaborate and beautiful sarcophagus being smashed to smithereens, we do not know; but the Eighteenth Dynasty was terminated by invasion. Ay was not followed on the throne by any kin of his the House of Akhnaton was followed by foreign rule. The Sequence of Dynasties With the close of the Amarna period we have reached, according to our revised scheme, the latter part of the ninth century. The eighth century and the beginning of the seventh were the periods of Libyan and Ethiopian dynasties in Egypt. The conventional scheme assigns the Amarna period to the earlier part of the fourteenth century and has the Nineteenth Dynasty, that of Seti and Ramses II, and the Twentieth Dynasty, that of Ramses III, the last great emperor of Egypt, succeed before the Libyans and Ethiopians ruled Egypt. The transition of power from the Eighteenth to the Nineteenth Dynasty is regarded as an obscure period of Egyptian history. The circumstances under which the Nineteenth Dynasty was established are said to be unknown. This Dynasty is one of the most famous successions of pharaohs Ramses I, Seti I, Ramses II, and Merneptah. Still another name is preserved, that of Haremhab. He belonged neither to the Eighteenth nor to the Nineteenth Dynasty; he was not a descendant of Akhnaton, nor was he an ancestor of the Ramessides. He is supposed to have ruled Egypt during an interregnum. It is not apparent why he was chosen to be king and to administer Egypt. Nothing is known of his end. The idea so often expressed that Haremhab was a successor of Ay is baseless. We shall encounter Haremhab later in this volume but he lived one hundred and fifty years after Ay. On the pages to follow I shall endeavor to show that the Libyan and Ethiopian dynasties followed closely the Eighteenth Dynasty and preceded the Nineteenth and the Twentieth. This result of the present reconstruction is probably the most unexpected of all. Yet in Peoples of the Sea (1977) the time of Ramses III and with him the entire Twentieth Dynasty have already been shown to belong into the fourth century; and the volume Ramses II and His Time (1978) has carried the task of identifying the Nineteenth Dynasty as synonymous with the Twenty-sixth, that of Necho I, Psammetichus, Necho II, and Apries. The so-called Nineteenth Dynasty will be found to have been displaced not only by the five hundred and forty years of error in the dating of the Eighteenth Dynasty, but also by an additional one hundred and seventy years the duration of the Libyan and Ethiopian dominations over Egypt: and the total error will be found reaching the huge figure of seven hundred years. Since the pharaohs of these dynasties waged wars and maintained peaceful relations with the kingdoms and peoples of the north, the transfer of these Egyptian dynasties to a time much more recent carries an enormous tide into the histories of the entire ancient East, including Asia Minor and Greece. The evidence of the present volume will lead us to the conclusion that the Libyan Dynasty that superseded the Eighteenth started not about -945, but more than a century later: the Libyan Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 5

Dynasty has been allotted a longer span of time than it actually occupied. In the chapter dealing with the sack of the Temple of Jerusalem, it was demonstrated that the biblical Shishak, its plunderer, was Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and the objects of his loot, depicted on the bas relief at Karnak, were identified as the vessels, utensils, and furniture of the Temple. His heir Amenhotep II was identified as the Biblical Zerah who invaded Palestine in the days of King Asa at the beginning of the ninth century. Thus they could not have been the Libyan kings Shoshenk and Osorkon. These Libyans reigned later, and the entire duration of that dynasty was shorter than is conventionally assumed. But we shall also show that Osorkon could not have reigned in the beginning of the ninth century and that Shoshenk could not have been the biblical Shishak because he was the Biblical Pharaoh So referred to in the Scriptures during the closing days of Samaria, in the time of King Hezekiah. The Libyan Dynasty endured for about one hundred and twenty years and the Ethiopian rule for close to fifty years, the latter being repeatedly interrupted by Assyrian conquests of Egypt. Thus in our view the only Dynasty correctly placed in the conventional scheme is the Ethiopian. With one period, namely the Ethiopian, torn out of a dislocated order of events and kept in its proper place in time, it happened that causes became consequences and consequences changed to causes, and descendants became ancestors, turning progenitors into offspring. Before we shall deal with the major problem of identifying the historical time of the origin of the Nineteenth Dynasty, we shall be concerned in a few of the following sections with a comparatively minor re-adjustment returning Shoshenk and Osorkon of the Libyan Dynasty from the tenth and ninth centuries to their proper places in the eighth century. The Libyans in Egypt The period of Libyan domination in Egypt, the Twenty-second Dynasty, is said by Manetho to have lasted for a hundred and twenty years: 2 But the accepted chronology, wrote Sir Alan Gardiner, finds itself compelled to legislate for fully two centuries... 3 What is the basis for beginning the time of the Libyan Dynasty of Egypt, that of Shoshenks and Osorkons, as early as -945 or even earlier and for stretching the period for over two hundred years? The end of the period is well established, because ca. -712 the Libyan rule was supplanted 2 W. G. Waddell, Manetho (Loeb Classical Library, 1940). 3 Egypt of the Pharaohs, (Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 334. Actually, at least 220 years must be allotted to the Twenty-second Dynasty on the conventional time scale. Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 6

by the Ethiopian domination, 4 and the latter stands firmly fixed in time in relation to Biblical and Assyrian sources. The beginning of the Libyan Dynasty was dated to -945 because a synchronical link was claimed to exist between the Biblical references to Pharaoh Shishak who conquered Palestine in the fifth year after Solomon, and Shoshenk Hedjkheperre of the Libyan dynasty. The placing of Shoshenk Hedjkheperre in the second half of the tenth century did not follow from the Egyptian material, But from the supposed synchronism of Rehoboam, who followed Solomon on the throne in Jerusalem, and Shoshenk Hedjkheperre. In Ages in Chaos I have pointed out that this alleged synchronism is not supported by the available evidence, and I was able to show that the conqueror of Jerusalem and sacker of its temple was not a Libyan king but Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty. In the Chapter entitled The Temple in Jerusalem I compare Thutmose s depiction of the booty taken by him with the Biblical description of the vessels and furnishings of Solomon s Temple to arrive at a positive identification of the sacker of Jerusalem s temple. 5 Now to bring Shoshenk Hedjkheperre to the head of the Libyan Dynasty is unnecessary; actually he will be shown to belong to the end of the period of Libyan domination in Egypt, and to be the Pharaoh So of the Scriptures. 6 During the greater part of the eighth century, when the Libyan Dynasty of Osorkons and Shoshenks ruled over Egypt, the kings of this country vied with the kings of Assyria for influence in Palestine and Phoenicia. Elibaal, king of the Phoenician port-city of Byblos, had an Egyptian artist carve a statue of Osorkon I and cut an inscription on its chest: Statue of Elibaal, king of Gebal (Byblos) made... 7 Since the conventional chronology made Osorkon a contemporary of Asa, who ruled over Israel in the early ninth century before the present era, Elibaal needed also to be placed in the ninth century nearly a hundred years too early, according to the conclusions reached in this work. Abibaal, another king of Byblos, ordered a statue of Shoshenk Hedjkheperre to be carved and inscribed in his name; 8 for this reason Abibaal was placed in the tenth century as a contemporary of that king. Placing Elibaal and Abibaal in the tenth and and 4 A. Spalinger, The Year 712 B.C. and its Implications for Egyptian History, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 10 (1973), pp. 95-101. [For criticism of the monumental evidence traditionally used to assign long reigns to some Libyan kings, see Helen K. Jaquet-Gordon, The Illusory Year 36 of Osorkon I, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 53 (1967), pp. 63-68, and R. Caminos, An Ancient Egyptian Donation Stela, Centaurus 14 (1969), pp. 42-46. The first author showed that because of a faulty reading by Flinders Petrie of the year formula on a stela of Osorkon I, this king had been wrongly credited with a thirty-six year reign; in fact it is unlikely that he reigned beyond the fifteen years recorded by Manetho the highest date mentioned on his documents is twelve years. In a note Jaquet-Gordon contended that the reign of Osorkon I s successor on the throne, Takelot I, needs to be similarly reduced, for a stela on the basis of which a 23-year reign has been meted out to him does not in fact belong to him at all. She suggested that Takelot only reigned the seven years which are attested on his genuine monuments. The attribution of the stela was definitively clarified by Caminos in an article published two years later, removing an error which has particularly affected king-lists and discussions of the Libyan period in Egypt. As a result of the two adjustments the Libyan period becomes shorter by a total of thirty-five years. This did not, however, produce a lowering of the absolute date for the beginnning of the Dynasty, which is still held to be firmly tied to the supposed synchronism between Shoshenk Hedjkheperre and Rehoboam. But the shortening of the individual reigns within the Dynasty is putting the entire scheme under increased strain.] 5 [Cf. E. Danelius, Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem? Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review II:3 (1977/78), pp. 64-79, and Velikovsky s response in Ibid., p. 80.] 6 See below, section Pharaoh So. 7 P. Montet, Byblos et l Egypte (Paris, 1928-29), pl. 36-38. 8 Ibid., p. 53, fig 17 and p. 56, fig. 18. Cf. my Ramses II and his Time (1978), Chapter III: The Tomb of Ahiram. Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 7

early ninth centuries respectively created problems for epigraphists concerned with the history of the Hebrew script. The inscriptions on the sculptures are in Hebrew characters, and were the subject of much discussion in connection with the development of the Hebrew alphabet. The epigraphists, who must take directives from the archaeologists, tried to reconcile the dates derived from these inscriptions with the characters on the stele of Mesha, the king of Moab, who in the middle of the ninth century revolted against Ahab, king of Israel, and with the ivories from Samaria belonging to the same period and were rather puzzled. The inscriptions of Elibaal and Abibaal are written in a script that appears to bear the closest resemblance to the eighth-century ostraka from Samaria; yet the conventional historians have them precede the stele of Mesha. Evidently, the order of the Libyan kings on the throne of Egypt is not properly put together, and Elibaal and Abibaal belong to the eighth century, just as do Osorkon I and Shoshenk Hedjkheperre, their contemporaries in Egypt. Libyan and Ethiopian Art & Culture EVIDENCE FROM LANGUAGE, ART, AND RELIGION In conjunction with the attempt to bring the period of Libyan and Ethiopian domination in Egypt into correct alignment within the framework of the history of that land and in proper synchronism with the histories of foreign countries I shall select several examples from the fields of language, art, and religion to demonstrate that the revised chronology does not contradict the natural evolutionary process we would expect to find in these various fields. To the contrary, the evidence in all these fields will argue for the new version of history. Paradoxical finds will no longer be paradoxical and enigmatic solutions will be easily understood. We shall elucidate, on such examples, the close following of the Libyan and Ethiopian dynasties upon the Eighteenth and their precedence in relation to the Nineteenth Dynasty. On the other hand, the comparison of language, art, and religion of the Eighteenth Dynasty with examples from the same three fields under the Nineteenth Dynasty exhibits a veritable gulf, or break in tradition. With the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty, Egypt was a changed world. The author of this evaluation, Sir Alan Gardiner, explained: it is impossible not to notice the marked deterioration of the art, the literature, and indeed the general culture of the people. The language which they wrote approximates more closely to the vernacular and incorporates many foreign words; the copies of ancient texts are incredibly careless, as if the scribes utterly failed to understand their meaning. 9 Considering that, in the conventional chronology, between the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty (King Ay) and the beginning of the Nineteenth (counted from Ramses I) only some fifteen to twenty years are available (and Haremhab is supposed to fill them) and even taking into account the revolutionary tendencies of Akhnaton a break in all aspects of cultural development marking the transition between the two dynasties, the Eighteenth and the Nineteenth, is more than enigmatic. THE LITERARY STYLE OF THE LIBYAN PERIOD 9 A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford, 1964), p. 247. Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 8

The oracular stele of Thutmose IV, father of Amenhotep III and grandfather of Akhnaton, is a famous relic. Thutmose, when still a prince in his teens, visited the oracle of the Great Sphinx at Gizeh. There he fell asleep and heard in his dream that he, not the eldest among his brothers and not in the line of succession, was destined to follow his father Amenhotep II on the throne. The oracle required Thutmose, upon his ascent to the throne, to clear the Sphinx of the desert sand that had swept in around it; when pharaoh, Thutmose fulfilled his vow and also erected a stele with a description of both the oracular dream and his freeing of the Sphinx from the sand. This stele was found between the paws of the Sphinx when in modern times the sand, that had again buried the huge figure above its paws, was removed under the supervision of archaeologists. A. Erman, an eminent Egyptologist, tried to prove that the stele is a product of a late dynasty, possibly the Libyan. He presented the evidence of literary style, epigraphy, and spelling, concluding that the stele must have originated between the tenth and sixth centuries, and not in the fifteenth which was the accepted time of Thutmose IV. 10 Our Sphinx stele is thus to be regarded as a restored inscription, but obviously a careless and free restoration. The time at which it was completed cannot be estimated exactly; it is not in any case later than the Saitic period, but can be placed equally well in the 21st or 22nd [Libyan] dynasty. 11 Erman s position was disputed by another equally eminent Egyptologist, W. Spiegelberg, who presented the argument that the late style and spelling are actually not late and that, furthermore, the texts of the Saitic period are conspicuous for their classical style; additionally, no marked difference is evident between the texts of these two periods. The good archaizing texts of the Saitic period are conspicuous in their use of correct classic orthography. 12 Spiegelberg concluded that, because of this similarity in the art of writing in these two periods, separated by half a millennium and more, Erman s argument was unfounded and the stele must have been carved in the days of the pharaoh whose name it bears, Thutmose IV. Is it not strange that the style and epigraphy of two periods, thought to be separated by such a large span of time, are so similar as to engage two specialists in such a dispute? The Eighteenth Dynasty and the Libyan period in Egypt produced very similar literary works. In no language, ancient or new, would four to seven hundred years have passed without very considerable changes: one need think only of the metamorphosis of English between the time of Geoffrey Chaucer and that of Oscar Wilde. It was no different with the Egyptian language; and most likely, the two epochs under consideration show so little change simply because there was so little time difference. Thus the conflicting opinions are much less conflicting if only scores of years, not five centuries, separate the time of Thutmose IV from the beginning of Libyan rule. THE ART OF THE EIGHTEENTH AND LIBYAN DYNASTIES The Libyan Dynasty, following directly upon the Eighteenth, perpetuated not only its literary style, but many of its artistic traditions as well. In some instances, the resemblance was so close that experts mistakenly attributed a work of art to the wrong Dynasty; and while the difference in time actually amounted to not more than a few decades, on the conventional time scale many 10 A. Erman, Ein neues Denkmal von der grossen Sphinx, SKPAW, 1904, p. 1063. 11 Ibid. 12 W. Spiegelberg, Die Datierung der Sphinxstele, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, Vol. 7 (1904), pp. 288ff. and 343ff. Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 9

centuries were involved centuries which could not have passed without profound changes in the mode of execution of statues, bas-reliefs, and paintings. Metal sculpture: One such instance is the Carnarvon statuette of Arnun, a rare chef-d oeuvre discovered by Howard Carter at Karnak in 1916. When first exhibited in 1922 it was described by Carter as a Statuette of the God in the Likeness of Thotmosis III. This attribution has never been challenged by any of the scholars who have published illustrations of the specimen, wrote Cyril Aldred in 1956, 13 and the present writer must include himself among those who accepted without cavil a dating to the Tuthmosid period. But a more detailed examination of the statuette convinced Aldred that a date in the Eighteenth Dynasty is untenable. The statue was not of the Eighteenth Dynasty. It was not even Ramesside. There is, in fact, nothing in this statuette which does not belong to the style of the Third Intermediate Period [the Libyan and Ethiopian dynasties] and everything is in favour of such a date... If a more precise dating within the Third Intermediate Period be insisted upon, then the writer is inclined to place this statuette of Amun early in the Twenty-second Dynasty, since it shows the stylistic features of such metal sculpture in fully developed form. 14 Conventional chronology puts almost six hundred years between the the time of Thutmose III and the early Libyan (Twenty-second) Dynasty kings. Were the changes in the execution of the sculptures so minute in this span of time that they could not be detected by an art expert? Or was the elapsed time much shorter, a century perhaps, as the revised chronology implies? In trying to explain how a blunder of this magnitude was possible, Aldred goes on to discuss the history of metal sculpture in Egypt. Metal sculpture, introduced under the Eighteenth Dynasty, experienced a setback under the Nineteenth Dynasty, but becomes plentiful again in the Libyan period. With the time of Libyan domination immediately following on the Eighteenth Dynasty, there was no interruption between the introduction of the technique under the Eighteenth Dynasty and its greatest florescence in Libyan times. We can cite another instance of misattribution of a sculpture in metal. A bronze figurine of Anubis, dated to the Libyan period in 1963, was only three years later re-dated by half a millennium to the Eighteenth or early Nineteenth Dynasties. 15 Sculpture in stone: Problems not unlike those involved in the dating of metal sculpture arose in the attribution of monumental sculpture in stone. In a private communication, the late Egyptologist Walter Federn brought to my attention the case of the sphinxes erected at Karnak in the temple of Mut. According to Federn: "In the temple of Mut at Karnak stand more than a hundred statues of the lion-goddess Sekhmet. The majority date from [the time of] Amenhotep II, and can be so identified by their inscriptions. Many were dedicated also by Shoshenk I, and are without the inscriptions characteristic of the others; they are notable for their somewhat careless execution... It is remarkable also that one statue, which is the largest of all, and which was formerly taken to be the oldest of them, originates rather from Shoshenk I. 16 13 Cyril Aldred, The Carnarvon Statuette of Arnun, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 42 (1956), p. 3. 14 Ibid, p. 7. 15 N. Dorin Ischlondsky, Problems of Dating a Unique Egyptian Bronze, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 25 (1966), pp. 97-105. 16 Cf. Percy E. Newberry, The Sekhemet statues of the Temple of Mut at Karnak, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology XXV (1903), pp. 217-221; Henri Gauthier, Les Statues Thebaines de la déesse Sakhmet, Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 10

Was the completion of the Sekhmet sphinxes interrupted for more than six centuries? Why did Seti the Great or Ramses II not complete the work, if, as is generally thought, they followed the Eighteenth Dynasty? It was the Libyan kings who completed the decoration of the temple begun by Amenhotep II, only a few decades after his death; and they did so in a style hardly distinguishable from the original work. Chalices: Chalices, or drinking vessels with relief decorations, are unique objects; they seem to have been made by the same group of men over no long period of time. 17 Some of them definitely belong to the Libyan period (Twenty-second Dynasty) because the names of Libyan kings, such as Shoshenk, are inscribed on them. These come from Memphis, at the apex of the Delta; but another group of somewhat finer workmanship originates in the town of Tuna in the vicinity of Hermopolis, almost directly across the river from Tell el-amama. The style of the uninscribed chalices from Tuna recalled so strongly the el-amarna style of art that several experts ascribed to them a late Eighteenth Dynasty date. The case was argued most forcefully by Ricketts in an article he published in 1918. 18 In the decoration of one chalice Ricketts found an almost Asiatic richness of design, a certain lack of severity which tended to confirm his impression that it belonged to an age of experiment, even of cross-influences, such as the later years of the Eighteenth Dynasty. 19 Another cup which he examined made him even more secure in his attribution: it was yet richer in aspect and, with its sparse figures, more certainly in the temper of the Eighteenth Dynasty. 20 A spirited fowling scene on a third chalice, so familiar from Eighteenth Dynasty painted tombs, strengthened his case still more. 21 The arguments presented in 1918 for a late Eighteenth Dynasty date for some of the chalices were at first accepted by most scholars; and when Sotheby, the renowned art dealer, listed them in his 1921 catalog, he also labeled them as such. Soon, however, several art experts expressed their unhappiness at such an early attribution, chiefly because of the similar, though somewhat inferior, chalices from Memphis, which could be dated securely to Libyan times on the basis of inscriptional evidence. It was unthinkable that there could have been a gap of over four centuries between the two groups. It was difficult to imagine that the art of manufacturing the objects died out under the Nineteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-first Dynasties, only to be revived under the Twenty-second or Libyan Dynasty. Scholarly opinion swung toward a Libyan date for all the chalices. Ricketts paper of 1918, so carefully argued on the basis of artistic analogies, was termed misleading 22 - yet no real reasons were adduced to invalidate the Eighteenth Dynasty attribution of the objects discussed by him. The solution to the dilemma becomes obvious when the Egyptian dynasties are placed in their correct sequence. The chalices were made as Ricketts deduced, during the Amarna period the Annales du Service des Antiquites del Egypte XIX (1920), pp. 177-207; Kurt Sethe, Zu den Sachmet-Statuen Amenophis III, Zeitschrift füraegyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, 58 (1923), pp. 43-44. 17 G. A. D. Tait, The Egyptian Relief Chalice, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 49 (1963), p. 132. 18 C. Ricketts, Two Faience Chalices at Eton College from the Collection of the Late Major W. J. Myers, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 5 (1918), pp. 145-147. 19 Ibid., pp. 145-146. 20 Ibid., p. 146. 21 Ibid., p. 146. 22 Tait, The Egyptian Relief Chalice, p. 93. Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 11

late Eighteenth Dynasty. They continued to be manufactured under the Libyan Dynasty that followed, even while exhibiting the same decline in artistic standards which characterized all Egyptian art in the wake of the civil war and foreign invasion that precipitated the end of the house of Akhnaton. And if they were made, as Tait argued, by the same group of men over no long period of time, they appear to have been manufactured in the space of two or three consecutive generations. SURVIVALS OF THE CULT OF ATON IN LIBYAN AND ETHIOPIAN TIMES The Eighteenth Dynasty saw, toward its end, the worship of Aton. Akhnaton in his religious reform or heresy as it is usually called instituted Aton as the supreme god. His heirs, Smenkhkare and Tutankhamen, having worshipped Aton in their earlier years, reverted again to the worship of Amon, and the circumstances of these religious vacillations are described in my Oedipus and Akhnaton. These kings, however, reigned for a few years only and died in their youth; they served as prototypes for Polynices and Eteocles of the Theban cycle of tragedies. Under the Libyan Dynasty not only the worship of Amon, but even the worship of Aton survived. Amon was a deity through long periods of Egyptian history, but the worship of Aton was very characteristic for the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty only. A stele, 23 now in the Cairo Museum, shows a priest in office under king Osorkon II, one of the later Libyan pharaohs. The priest is described in the text as Prophet of Amonrasonter in Karnak who contemplates Aton of Thebes, a somewhat peculiar description which H. Kees remarked upon. He noted that it is as if the priest had lived in Amarna times! 24 At the beginning of this century James H. Breasted drew attention to the fact that the Ethiopian temple-city Gem-Aten, known from the annals of the Nubian kings, carries the same name as Akhnaton s temple at Thebes, and that the two must be in some relation, despite the great difference in age. A relief in a Theban tomb shows Akhnaton with his family worshipping in the temple of Gem-Aten. The name of the Theban temple of Aton therefore furnished the name of the Nubian city, and there can be no doubt that lkhenaton [Akhnaton] was its founder, and that he named it after the Theban temple of his god... We have here the remarkable fact that this Nubian city of lkhenaton survived and still bore the name he gave it nearly a thousand years after his death and the destruction of the new city of his god in Egypt (Amarna). 25 Recently, Alexander Badawy discussed the worship observed by Akhnaton at the Gem-Aten ("Meeting of the Aten ) which stood at Amarna. It is thought that the king used to come to meet the Aton daily in the eastern open courts of the Gem-Aten. 26 Music and singing, rattling of sistra, presentation of incense and flowers gave a festive note of jubilation to the daily liturgy of Aten. 27 23 Catalogue no. 4 2213. 24... als ob er in der Amarnazeit gelebt hatte! - See Ein Sonnenheiligtum im Amonstempel von Karnak, Orientalia, Nova Series 18 (1949), p. 442. 25 James H. Breasted, A City of Ikhenaton in Nubia, Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache 40 (1902/1903), p. 107. 26 A. Badawy, The Names Pei-Ha y/gem-aten of the Great Temple at Amarna, Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache 102 (1975), p. 13. 27 Ibid., p. 12. Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 12

The Gem-Aten (or Gempaton) of the annals of the Nubian kings was found by F. Addison at Kawa in 1929. The further excavations of Griffith and Macadam at the site uncovered two documents of Amenophis III which attested the foundation by this king of the historical Gempaton. 28 Breasted s conclusion that the later Ethiopian temple went back to the Amama period was now confirmed by archaeology. 29 This only underlines the remarkable fact that the city carried, through the many centuries that supposedly elapsed between the Amama period and Ethiopian times, a name recalling a heretical cult and, moreover, remained unnoticed throughout this period in contemporary documents. After Akhnaton s time the name Gem-Aten is first referred to in an inscription of Tirhaka in one of the side-chambers of the Gebel-Barkal temple 30 yet its earlier history is totally unknown. 31 Between the Amama period and the time of Tirhaka, the accepted chronology inserts almost 700 years but we know that in fact only little more than a century elapsed, the period of Libyan domination; and we have seen that the cult of Aton persisted through the Libyan period. Possibly the cult of Aton was perpetuated for a time by priests who fled south when, about - 830, the tide turned back in favor of the religion of Amon and the Libyan kings from the Delta were pushing toward Thebes. In any case, the religion of Atenism did not survive into Ethiopian times. When Piay (Piankhy) invaded Egypt about - 725 he did so under the guidance of Amon but even then, ironically, Amon s chief sanctuary in Ethiopia retained the name it had received from Akhnaton a century earlier. THE TOMB OF MENTUEMHAT The Ethiopian period, following the Libyan, came between the Eighteenth and the Nineteenth Dynasties, and its art shows affinities with both. This can be seen for instance in the decoration of the tomb of Mentuemhat, governor of Thebes in the time of Tirhaka and Assurbanipal. In 1947 the Brooklyn Museum purchased a fragment of limestone relief of exceptional quality 32 It was evaluated by John D. Cooney of the Egyptian Department as a product of the late Eighteenth Dynasty. The bas-relief contains scenes already known from paintings in the Eighteenth Dynasty tomb of Menna in the Theban necropolis (tomb no. 69) a peasant girl sitting on a chair and taking a thorn out of the foot of another girl sitting opposite her; and a second scene of a woman with a child in a sling at her breast arranging fruits in a basket (Plate XIV). Both scenes, of exquisite bas-relief technique, have so many identical details with the paintings of the tomb of Menna that Professor Cooney was not acting inconsiderately when he assumed he purchased objects of art of the late Eighteenth Dynasty. 28 Jean Leclant and Jean Yoyotte, Notes d histoire et de civilization ethiopiennes, Bulletin de l Institut Français d Archeologie Orientale 51 (1952), p. 6. 29 T. Säve-Soderbergh, Aegypten und Nubien (Lund, 1941), p. 162, affirms that the city, while founded by Amenhotep III, received its name from Akhnaton. 30 R. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Part V, (Vol. 10), pi. 12. 31 Breasted, A City of Ikhenaton in Nubia, p. 106. 32 John D. Cooney, Three Early Saite Tomb Reliefs, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 9 (1950), p. 193. Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 13

However, only a few months later, Professor Cooney narrates, two other fragmentary reliefs were offered to the Museum and were assessed by him as dating from the seventh century. 33 They were also purchased at a price appropriate for art of the Saite period, or the seventh and early sixth centuries, which is by far below the value of comparable art pieces of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The two fragments contained a scene depicting musicians and scribes with certain details that made a Saite date completely certain 34 (Plates XIII and XVI). Of the first acquisition Cooney wrote: I was so convinced of the early date of the relief with peasant scenes that I failed even to consider a relationship between it and the Saite pieces. 35 Yet when, at the suggestion of a colleague (W. Stevenson Smith), he compared all three reliefs he found that the limestone and the heights and divisions of the registers were the same in all of them; the conclusion became unavoidable that all three had been made in the seventh century, and actually were recognized as being derived from the same tomb (Theban tomb no. 34) that of Mentuemhat, the governor of Thebes under Tirhaka the Ethiopian. 36 Because of the artistic similarities between the scenes in the tombs of Menna and Mentuemhat, Professor Cooney had to assume that the Eighteenth Dynasty example was still accessible and artistically influential after more than seven hundred years had elapsed. The lucky preservation of the Eighteenth Dynasty original, wrote Cooney, which served as model to the Sai te sculptor provides an ideal chance to grasp the basic differences between the art of these periods separated by a span of almost eight centuries. 37 Actually, however, between the time of Menna and the time of Mentuemhat not 800, but ca. 200 years passed, only a fourth of the span noted by Cooney. Upon having surveyed some of the problems in language (style and trends) and art (including religious art), in comparing the Eighteenth Dynasty with the Libyan and Ethiopian dynasties, the conclusion is irresistible that the logical development of Egyptian culture requires re-ordering the sequence of the dynasties as they are presently known from Manethonian heritage to modern scholarship. At the same time, the obvious rift between the language, art, and religion of the latter part of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the language, art, and religion evident at the inception of the Nineteenth Dynasty is extremely difficult to explain given the proximity of the two dynasties in the conventional scheme of Egyptian chronology. Jeroboam II and Osorkon II The conventional timetable has Ahab, the king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, as a contemporary of one of the kings of the Libyan Dynasty, usually Osorkon II. And almost regularly reference is made to archaeological evidence called to substantiate this synchronism; it is worded thus: Osorkon II. He was a contemporary of Ahab, for in his palace at Samaria an albaster vase bearing the name of Osorkon II was found. 38 33 Ibid., p. 193. 34 Ibid., p. 193. 35 Ibid., p. 194. 36 Ibid., p. 194. 37 Ibid., p. 196. 38 P. van der Meer, The Chronology of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt, second revised ed. (Leiden, 1955), p. 83. Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 14

In the chapters VI to VIII of Ages in Chaos, dealing with the el-amarna period, it is demonstrated that Ahab was a contemporary of the later kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Amenhotep III and IV (Akhnaton), and that over sixty-five letters on clay tablets addressed by him to these kings are still in existence, in originals, as written by the royal scribes, found in the ground of el-amarna. Having been a contemporary of these pharaohs, the synchronization of Ahab with Osorkon II of the Libyan Dynasty cannot but be grounded in error. To expose the error of the quoted sentence, we have to check the records of the excavators. During the years 1908-1910 the Harvard University archaeological expedition at Sebastieh, ancient Samaria, uncovered the foundation of a palace. It was tentatively identified as the palace built by Omri and enlarged by Ahab. Like the unearthed portions of the city wall of Samaria, the palace was built on virgin rock. The biblical passage about Omri building his capital on an unoccupied hill was regarded as confirmed. The floor of the palace was covered with layers containing the remains of later structures; but no vestige of earlier structures was found under the floor, nor were any signs of settlement prior to the time of Omri, except for a neolithic encampment, unearthed on the site of Samaria. On the floor of the palace numerous small Egyptian objects were found, among them scarabs (signets). The carvings on the scarabs are mostly decorative designs, but on one of them a cartouche, or royal name, was found engraved. The cartouche was that of Thutmose III. Since there was no plausible explanation for the presence of the cartouche of Thutmose III in the palace at Samaria, presumably built about six centuries after this pharaoh had died, the excavators suggested: This may be a local imitation of an Egyptian scarab. 39 As we have seen in the first volume of Ages in Chaos, Thutmose III reigned only a few decades before Omri; the cartouche apparently is genuine. A jar with the cartouches of Osorkon II was found near the palace of Samaria and it was brought forth as an evidence for the contemporaneity of Osorkon II and Ahab. Scores of ostraca were also found in Samaria. Ostraka, or potsherds inscribed with ink, were less expensive than burnt clay tablets or papyri; they were used when it was not expected that the writing would be preserved in an archive. Wine and oil when delivered were accompanied by these shards. The ostraca of Samaria are inscribed with the names of persons or towns that delivered oil or wine to the king s palace; they are dated in the ninth year, in the tenth year, in the seventeenth year, of the king, but the name of the king is not mentioned. In various books and articles it is asserted that the jar of Osorkon, contemporary of Ahab, was found in the same debris as the ostraca, 40 and it has been concluded that the ostraca of Samaria refer to the ruling years of Ahab. But is it true that these inscribed shards were found in the same debris as the Osorkon jar? And then, is it true that the ostraca of Samaria date from the reign of Ahab? 39 G. A. Reisner, O. S. Fisher, and D. G. Lyon, Harvard Excavations at Samaria, I, 377. 40 La date des ostraca de Samarie est fixée par les circonstances de la trouvaille et cette date est confirmée par la présence dans les mêmes débris des fragments d une vase au nom d Osorkon II (874-853), contemporain d Achab. Syria, VI (1925). This statement, compared with the record of the excavators, is not exact. James W. Jack, Samaria in Ahab s Time (Edinburgh, 1929), p. 42, also says that Osorkon s jar was found in the same debris as the ostraca. Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 15

The report of the excavation gives the location precisely: The southern wall of the Osorkon House [so-called because of Osorkon s jar] was built in part over the foundations of the north wall of rooms 406, 407, and 408. The foundations of the assumed northern part of the Ostraca House must have been destroyed previous to the construction of the Osorkon House. 41 It follows that Osorkon s jar came to its location later than the ostraca came to theirs. This nullifies the argument that the jar must be of the same age as the ostraca. Thus even had the ostraca been inscribed during Ahab s reign, Osorkon s jar found its place at a definitely later date. But of what age are the ostraca? The archaeologists at first reasoned thus: Since Osorkon II is known to have been a contemporary of Omri and Ahab, and since Omri reigned but twelve years, and the ostraca mention the seventeenth year of the king, they must have been written in the days of Ahab. It follows that the ostraca of Samaria are about the same age as the Mesha stele of the middle of the ninth century. 42 A comparison of the Hebrew signs of the Samaritan ostraca with the Hebrew characters of the Mesha stele shows a definite change in the writing of single letters. The same characteristics found in the Samaritan letters reappear in the Shiloah inscription of King Hezekiah, dating from close to -700. How to explain that the characters of the ostraca, a quarter of a century older than the stele of Mesha, are more directly related to the later characters of the Shiloah inscription? 43 This compelled the researchers to advance the hypothesis that the Hebrew letters passed through a retrograde stage of development before resuming their progress, or that in Moab the development was slower than in Samaria. In subsequent excavations at Samaria ivories with Hebrew letters were unearthed. These letters were found to be of the same type as those on the stele of Mesha and to have therefore originated in the ninth century. They are of a more archaic type than the characters of the ostraca of Samaria. 44 The conclusion has now for some time been generally accepted that the Samaritan ostraca were written not in Ahab s time, but in the time of one of the last kings of Samaria. Of the kings of Israel after Ahab, only Jeroboam II and Pekah reigned for more than seventeen years. The scholarly opinion arrived at an almost unanimous conclusion that the ostraca were written in the days of Jeroboam II (ca. -785 to -744). 45 This conclusion appears to be correct. The house that sheltered the jar of Osorkon II in Samaria was built on the ruins of the house that sheltered the inscribed potsherds. Since the ostraca were written in the days of Jeroboam II, one of the last kings of Israel to reign in Samaria, every ground for making Pharaoh Osorkon II a 41 Reisner, Fisher, and Lyon, Harvard Excavations at Samaria, I, 131. 42 See Ages in Chaos, Vol. I, Chap. VII. 43 Dusaud, Syria VI (1925), 332: Comment expliquer que l écriture des ostraca, d un quart de siècle plus ancienne que la stèle de Mesa, se rattache plus étroitement à l écriture cependant plus récente de l inscription de Siloe? 44 F. L. Sukenik, Notes on the Hebrew Letters on the Ivories, in Crowfoot and Crowfoot, Early Ivories. Cf. J. L. Starkey, in Lachish, Vol. I: The Lachish Letters (London, 1938), p. 13. 45 W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 41, and idem in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. by J. B. Pritchard (Princeton, 1950), p. 321. Immanuel Velikovsky, The Assyrian Conquest (PDF Cor Hendriks, Dec. 2017) 16